Racism and Christianity are Incompatible.

Does racism work with Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

With today being MLK Day, we think about a man who said he wants people to be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. The dream was to see black and white boys and girls playing together and being friends. There was to be no advantage or disadvantage to race.

Sadly, the church hasn’t had a perfect track record here. It could be a natural human tendency to look with suspicion at the other. We often treat slavery as if it was the worst evil and also uniquely American. It is a great evil indeed, though I think some are worse, such as mass genocide, but it is also not uniquely American. Most every other culture has enslaved a group and been enslaved themselves. Many groups have enslaved their own people and sold their own people to be slaves.

There were too many Christians who were defending slavery in America. I recognize that my own denomination’s history has a black mark here, one that I am thankful we have recognized the error of. I have a professor here who has said if he could ask Jonathan Edwards one question, it would be “Why did you keep slaves?”

Generally, we recognize racism as wrong today, but why? What makes it wrong? We can’t just take these ideas as if they are a given. After all, if you went back 2,000 years ago and asked the average person in the Roman Empire if slavery was wrong, they would look at you puzzled. Of course not. Why would you think such a thing? Oddly, many of the slaves could think the exact same thing.

As Tom Holland argues in his book Dominion, even as an agnostic, he finds his values are really Christian ones. Our culture has been so shaped by Christianity that we don’t see it. We tend to think “This is the way everyone thinks.” No. It isn’t. Our beliefs on morality are something that have been tinkered out over a long period of time. I also suspect we’re about to see how important they are as the major movement today is to avoid any idea of morality in many areas, especially sex.

In Christianity, mankind is created in the image of God. There is no distinction in that regard between male and female. Both are said to be equally in the image of God, despite them both being very different. (Hallelujah that women are so different, might I add.) Too many of us have this idea that if there are any differences between two things, then one is superior and the other is inferior. Not always.

Are men superior in any way? Yes. Absolutely. So are women. Men are superior at being men. Women are superior at being women. (Something our culture is trying to destroy the idea of. It’s amazing women are complaining about the patriarchy all the while supporting the transgender movement.) There are benefits to being a man and there are benefits to being a woman and there are downsides to both.

The same can apply to races. Can there be differences between the races besides appearance? Absolutely. Does this mean that any one race is superior or inferior? Not a bit. (I cannot recommend enough Thomas Sowell on these kinds of questions.)

What racism does is it treats the image of God, the main aspect of man in Christianity, as if it was of lesser importance than race. Taking any secondary characteristic of a person and treating it as a primary characteristic is demeaning. This is also the same when we treat the most important aspect of a person to be any of the aspects I mentioned above.

This does not mean that these secondary qualities are unimportant, but they should not be ranked above the most important. Each person you meet is in the image of God. If they are, then you are to love them as yourself. You can speak all you want against what a person does, because that can be wicked and evil, but humanity is a good still, a good regardless of any of the secondary characteristics.

Also, this racism is not just treating as someone lesser because of a secondary characteristic. It’s also treating them as greater because of it. James had a problem with special privileges being given to the rich. He would have just as much problem with special privileges being given based on the secondary characteristics as well. If you want to see racism die in a society, you have to get rid of privileges as well as disadvantages.

A truly Christian society will be a society that is without racism.

Let’s aim for that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

The Lord of the Sabbath

What does this say about Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Much of the rest of the Old Testament on the Sabbath is really about the people breaking it and not keeping it. It’s not about the nature of the Sabbath. Thus, we’re going to move ahead to the New Testament. The first place to go to is Matthew 12. This pericope shows up in other Gospels, so we’re only going to look here:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

So in this passage, Jesus’s disciples are picking heads of grain and eating them. The text doesn’t say, but knowing how the Pharisees are, I wonder if Jesus told them prior it was acceptable to do this. Why are the Pharisees with Jesus? Most likely keeping an eye on a new teacher and making sure their own status in the community is safe.

And now they’ve got him! His own disciples are violating the Sabbath! Now Jesus Himself isn’t getting the grain, but it doesn’t matter. The disciples are supposed to reflect the teachings of the master and Jesus is not rebuking them at all! The Pharisees have Jesus cornered.

Yet as we know, Jesus always turns the tables on them.

In this case, Jesus first points to the example of King David and let’s not miss the underlying cut He gives these guys? “Haven’t you read?” It’s so simple, but Jesus is really shaming them. “Hey, guys. Haven’t you heard this story? Most of us learned it in Sunday School. You really don’t remember this?” Obviously, these were the guys that were supposed to be masters of the book. Surely they would know this!

So what happens? King David comes in and takes bread that is meant for the priests only. There is no condemnation of David. He had men who were hungry and defending Israel and they needed to be cared for. The needs of the people come before the Law.

What about priests? Priests themselves have to work in the temple on the Sabbath. Thus, they are desecrating the Sabbath, but there is no condemnation for them. They are innocent even though they could be seen as technically breaking the Law.

An indignant Pharisee could have said at this point “You think you can just set the rules for everyone? Who do you think you are?”

That is not in the text, but had He done it, Jesus’s next statement would really show them and stun them. Jesus says God desires mercy, not sacrifice, meaning real actions of faithfulness to God from the heart more than ritualistic behavior. He then says if they had understood, they would not have condemned the innocent, namely His disciples.

This is sandwiched between two statements. The first is that one greater than the temple is here. The second is the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Consider the first one. The temple was where the glory of God was supposed to dwell. The glory of the second temple Haggai said would be greater than the glory of the first. This was where the very Shekinah dwelt. This was how the people knew God was with them.

And Jesus says He is greater than that place where the Shekinah glory dwells.

The second is that He is the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath. One of the big ten. The one that got Israel in trouble for not obeying. The one that let the land have rest for seventy years.

And Jesus is Lord of that day.

Now if you were a Jew, you could think “Wait. The Lord of the Sabbath is….”

What does that mean about who Jesus is?

Jesus declares what the Sabbath is and what it is for and how it is to be honored. We’ll see how that happens in salvation history as we go on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Femininity is a Good Thing

Is it good for a woman to be a woman? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I read some of a mystery every day. Yesterday morning, I read this in the one I’m going through now where a female detective is wanting to find out how to get close to a male suspect she wants to question.

“Rob Saunders is obviously a bit of a Casanova. You’re a young, pretty girl. You could use that to your advantage.”
“What? You’re not telling me to seduce him, are you?” cried Ellie.
“Oh, don’t look so shocked. I’m not suggesting that you sleep with him,” said Aunt Olive, clicking her tongue. “But a man like Rob… well, now, he’d be easy to interrogate if you know how to play him.” She saw Ellie’s expression. “Oh, come on, poppet! Calculated seduction is a time-honored tradition in intrigue and espionage! I know it’s not politically correct to say this nowadays, but you can achieve a lot with a suggestive smile and a show of cleavage.”
“Aunt Olive! You’ve just set the women’s lib movement back fifty years or something!”
“Rubbish!” snorted her aunt. “A woman who knows how to use her feminine charms to get what she wants is the one who’s truly empowered.”
I realize some people might think the language here is a bit crude and no, this is not a Christian work, but ultimately, as I read this passage, I had to agree with Aunt Olive in her basic point. The empowered woman is not the woman who tries to deny her femininity. It is the one who knows how to use it properly.
The feminist movement has really been very anti-woman. One of the main problems is that they set up a sort of competition between men and women. Men didn’t have this problem. Women did. Women wanted to be able to focus on a career, not worry about children, and not be seen as a piece of eye candy.
I am not against a woman having a career and not every woman will be a mother. Certainly a woman shouldn’t be treated as an object, but the way women went about these goals was wrong. It was not by being better at what they were, being women, but by trying to in essence not be women and be men.
So a man can have sex and not have to worry about carrying a baby for nine months as a result. No problem. Use birth control and if that doesn’t work, get an abortion. Deny your biological clock (Which men don’t have) and just work at your career and you decide when you want to have a baby, if you ever do. If men can walk around topless, women can too!
It hasn’t worked well for women.
Believe it or not women, if you want to get a real man, a man wants a woman who is a woman. He doesn’t want a woman who is trying to act like a man. He likes the things in a woman that set her apart from men.
That includes beauty.
That beauty is a good thing also. Yes. A woman can do a lot of damage to a man if she misuses her beauty and seduces him into doing things that he shouldn’t. However, she can also use that beauty to greatly inspire and motivate a man.
Consider Jacob in the Bible. When he sees Rachel, he’s immediately impressed by her beauty and when asked what his wages will be, he already knows. He wants Rachel! The text says he worked seven years, but they seemed like a short time because of his great love for her. I can imagine him easily out in the fields working hard and here comes Rachel walking by with a cute smile, the breeze blowing through her hair, the grace of her figure, everything, and Jacob just thinking “Soon.”
Then when the seven years is up (Is Jacob counting down the days), Jacob is awfully brazen and just goes to his future father-in-law and says “I’ve done my work. Give me your daughter. I want to sleep with her.”
That’s what the text literally says! I honestly can’t imagine going up to my former father-in-law on the day of the wedding and saying “You ready to give her up? I’m wanting to sleep with her.”
Now in the story, Jacob had to work seven more years for Rachel, but he did it. Why? Because female beauty is highly inspiring to a man. A man can do things he never would have dreamed of doing before just for female beauty. My ex-wife did cause some major good changes in me just because I was motivated by her beauty, something no one else could do.
Ladies. Keep this in mind also. Perhaps a guy who asks you out isn’t a ten in your minds, but consider this. If he is of good character, go out with him and see what changes can be brought about in him just because he wants you. You can inspire a man to be a man in ways he never was before just because your beauty has that effect on him. (Consider how in the Christmas special, Rudolph flies immediately just because Clarice says she thinks he’s cute.)
It’s the way God made the system. Enjoy it. He knew what He was doing.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

1 Cor. 8:6 and the Trinity

Does this verse demonstrate that Jesus is included in the divine nature? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m a member on Facebook for a group to debate the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sadly, many witnesses really do not know what they’re arguing against when it comes to the Trinity. Most arguments against the Trinity are arguments against modalism. Also sadly, too many Christians outside of this group that are lay Christians would probably explain the Trinity using modalistic descriptions.

One passage that can regularly come up from JWs is 1 Cor. 8:6. They seem to think it really makes the case. Let’s look at it.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There you have it! There is one God, the Father! Jesus is not that one God. Jesus is Lord, but He is not God. On a surface level, one can say, “If that’s the case, then the Father is God, but He is not Lord.” That is indeed problematic enough, but let’s go further in looking at this text.

There are two parallel themes.

1A: For us, there is but one God, the Father.

1B: From whom all things came and for whom we live.

2A: And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,

2B: Through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There is indeed parallelism here, which is fascinating, but could there still be something more. Imagine that a Jew makes a statement that there is one God. What will other Jews immediately think of? The Shema, Israel’s great monotheistic statement.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The terms Lord, God, and One, are all repeated here. Paul is using intertextuality to call to mind an Old Testament text. The same takes place in Romans 1. Paul uses terms like creator, and “male and female” to point to Genesis 1 as the basis for his argument for divine revelation in creation and for the wrongness of same-sex erotic practice.

What then Paul is doing is he is taking Jesus and he is slipping him into the Shema, Christianizing it and putting Jesus in the divine nature. Rather than denying the deity of Christ, Paul is emphasizing it in strong terms. Also, Jesus is presented as the means of creation, which is incredible since in Isaiah 44:24, God is said to have done creation alone.

“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

Some can see this as wisdom, but if you read Jewish writings like the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom was taking on a more and more role of deity as a hypostasis of God. The formula is always the same in the New Testament be it John 1, 1 Cor. 8, Hebrews 1, or Col. 1. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

I have presented this several times asking JWs to show where my exegesis is wrong. To date, no one has. Let’s look at some objections that are brought up.

“But Jesus is not His Father!”

Which shows the person doesn’t understand Trinitarian thinking. Saying Jesus is God is theological shorthand. It really is saying Jesus fully partakes of the divine nature. It in no way means Jesus is the Father.

“But the Shema never mentions Jesus!”

True, and irrelevant. This is progressive revelation. This assumes God had to reveal Himself as triune from the get-go or else He isn’t.

“But what about these passages that show Jesus is not God?”

And whatever passage is brought up needs to be discussed, but unless a JW wants to deny inerrancy, which I don’t think they do, then they need to explain this passage as well and show where my exegesis is wrong. If not, then you are saying this one passage teaches X and the other one teaches non-X, which is a denial of inerrancy.

The gauntlet has been cast down. I wait to see if any JWs are willing to pick it up and take the challenge. Show where the exegesis is wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Advice For Younger Apologists

What do I recommend younger apologists do? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I had my friend Evan Minton stay with me for Defend, so I read his review of his trip. In the middle of that, he mentioned this blog post by Chris Stockman and Will Hess. I resonated with a lot of their concerns. I figured it would be helpful to say some of my thoughts on the subject.

Generally, I have tried to make it a point to avoid specializing in in-house debates. I have taken a strong position against a number of issues such as the idea of how God is supposed to normatively communicate today and against beliefs like the rapture. Generally, this is about more than just going against the viewpoint, but trying to deal with something that I think does more harm than good and to reassure other Christians.

Recently, I wrote about Satanic Panic, for example. This is because I know of many Christians who live in paralyzing fear by well-meaning Christians and because this distracts us from the bigger problems out there. I am much more concerned about kids who get caught up in Instagram than I am those who get caught up in Pokemon.

The only time I can think of when I got directly involved in a debate that was in-house with major ramifications was when Norman Geisler went after my then father-in-law. For one thing, this was my family. I also did this at great sacrifice to myself. Despite all this, when Geisler died, I made sure to write a tribute to him because he did do a great service for us.

I also happen to have a number of friends who are Catholic. I meet with them regularly on Thursday night for a Zoom meeting where we discuss Aquinas, relevant to me seeing as I am a Thomist. They know I am one of the token Protestants. Sometimes, I’m asked my view on a passage as it relates to something like Marian dogmas or praying to saints. I disagree with those positions and yet, I make it a point to not be antagonistic. Not only that, but usually, there’s not pushback. I give my two cents. I move on.

I’m not saying all Catholics are Christians, but I also don’t say all Protestants are Christians. My ex-wife used to attend an Orthodox Church and I went with her and I formed great friendships with the people there. Did I disagree with them? Yep. Do I think they’re still my brothers and sisters in Christ? Yes. Do I think they’re all Christians in the Orthodox community? Not at all, but again, that is true for the Protestant community as well.

One of the big debates I see going on on Facebook now is the minimal facts approach vs the Maximal data approach. I have made it a point to not enter into this. Why? Because for one thing, I still am on good terms with my former father-in-law and I remain a great friend of Gary Habermas. On the other hand, I have the utmost respect for Tim McGrew and one of the great delights I have in Defend is when he comes by.

So which approach do I recommend?

Both of them.

For one thing, it depends on the situation one is in. If someone starts talking about problems in the Gospels, well we go to the Gospels. I am prepared to defend them. However, if someone wants to talk about the resurrection of Jesus directly, I normally go with the minimal facts approach. I prefer to have as many arrows in my quiver as possible.

The authors of the piece talk about how Frank Turek is a target regularly. I did read years ago I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. I found it helpful for where I was. Would it help me today? Probably not, but would I encourage someone starting out to read it? Sure.

Not only that, but also, Frank Turek is incredibly personable. Whenever I have met him, he has been nothing but kind to me and I remember him giving freely of his time in Charlotte to invest in young people so they could know better how to answer opponents. Will they learn how to answer specialized opponents from that? No. But will they learn how to answer their peers? Yes. That’s what matters.

Interestingly, this is in many ways the same thing Tim McGrew does when he comes to Defend. He has specialized talks, but then he has talks where he just invites people to come and discuss coffeeshop style and many of those are younger people. Not all of these people are going to specialize in apologetics. They just want to know what to say to their peers.

I also do understand that part of having your ministry is putting yourself out there. I have to do fundraising sometimes as an apologist. I hate it. I really do. I hate having to talk about myself and why you should support my Patreon. Despite what some of you might think, I do try to avoid anything that could increase pride in me. I know it’s a struggle.

It has to be done to some extent though, but if I am going to build my reputation in the world, the last way I want to do it is by tearing someone else in the apologetics field down. When it comes to many of these issues that we disagree on, I tell people I am fine to disagree with them, but when it becomes a divisive area between us, I am done. If I am discussing with Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists and Catholics and Orthodox come alongside me, I am happy to unite forces with them against the one who is outside of the faith in the hopes of either winning them over or defusing their arguments so the weaker can see how weak they are.

Are there a lot of pathetic arguments going around against the faith now? Yes, and we need to answer them. We do need to answer people like Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Most people are not going to bring up objections from Mackie and Oppy, and this includes atheists themselves. I realize that many New Testament scholars don’t know how to answer mythicists, which I think is a shame, because these are the common arguments that are being floated around on the internet and that their audience is encountering.

Also, keep in mind that though you disagree with someone, they can still teach you a lot. I try to make it a point to learn from everyone that I meet. My therapist here at the seminary is I am sure more than a decade younger than I am. Don’t care. I have a lot to learn. I am older than some of my professors here. Don’t care. I have a lot to learn. For my own personal reading, I am going through probably more than ten books at the time, and not all of them are academic. Some are just fun books. I happen to love reading mysteries.

By the way, my fellow seminary students, if the only reading you are doing is the reading you are doing for class, please re-examine what you’re doing with your life. You should be trying to learn something always. I have even made it a point to get the syllabi in advance for my classes so I can go ahead and do the reading and get started on the work.

Ultimately, I just want to encourage those coming up to try to spread more light than heat. Never forget the people that you are really doing this for. No matter how well you know something, you should always be capable of explaining it in terms anyone can understand and if you can’t do that, then I have to question if you really understand it.

If you disagree with other Christians who are recognized in the field, do so respectfully as best as you can. For all the time you go after them, make sure you go even more after the real opponents out there. Never lose sight of where the battle really lies.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Death For Gathering Sticks?

Isn’t this a stiff penalty? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many readers can be puzzled by this story in Numbers 15 and internet atheists love to share it:

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Wow. All this guy was doing was gathering wood and he gets put to death?

The context of this is right before this, the text speaks of the sin of the high hand. This is someone who acts defiantly in the face of God. They know that something is wrong and they go and do it anyway. It is an act of treason in such a covenant.

And that is what this man did.

Also, keep in mind that there is just one man who does this. Just one. What does that tell us? It tells us that this man knew he was doing something in isolation as the rest of the community was resting and if by some strange reason he didn’t know why, it would have been easy enough to find out.

Note also that if we say he was gathering wood for cooking, then we have a bigger problem. On the Sabbath, fires were not to be set (Exodus 35:3), no cooking was to be done, (Exodus 16:23), and of course, this was one of the Big Ten Commandments. Everything about this act is wrong.

Even if for some reason he had not had enough food somehow, hospitality was greatly valued in the Middle East. It would have been easy to go to a rich person who had an abundance and get something to eat. Also, in a worst-case scenario, no one is going to starve to death before the sun goes down.

When we get to the New Testament, we see Jesus allowing exceptions on the Sabbath for something like necessarily daily care for animals or for someone who is sick or in a place of injury. Does that cancel this out? Not at all. None of those situations shows what is going on here. It was still defiance and individual defiance would put the whole community at risk.

Also, if this man is willing to do such a thing for something so small, what is to stop him from doing it for something greater? Proverbs says a thief can be understood if he is trying to get food to eat. Again, this is not the same scenario.

Ultimately, what we can learn is that in the Old Testament at least, God does take keeping the Sabbath seriously. To mess up in this area leads to the death penalty. This is something we should keep in mind with out future study of this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Satanic Panic and Pokemon: A Case Study

Should we beware of pocket monsters? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A friend of Deeper Waters was deeply surprised when in my last newsletter I mentioned going out walking at Christmas which also helped me with Pokemon Go. But isn’t that a satanic game? Isn’t that connected with that other demonic game, Dungeons and Dragons? I was given a link to this article.

The problem I have with this is so much of it was based on personal experience. Okay. This lady has an experience with her son concerning Pokemon. Now let’s suppose there are far more other people who have positive experiences with their son about Pokemon. Do those people overrule the negative experience here? Does the truth change based on experience?

Now this isn’t the first time I have come across such things. I wrote years ago on the writings of Phil Arms on this topic. I found it lacking then and I still find it lacking now.

So let’s go back and see how things started off. We can say that Role-playing actually began with J.R.R. Tolkien and creating the world of Middle-Earth. We got introduced to many races and creatures and that book has had a lasting impact. Today, there are immense fandoms about this. People eventually would want to play games about this.

So then comes Dungeons and Dragons. Unfortunately, that got a bad rap early on with incidents like the Pulling Report and the book Mazes and Monsters. The problem is this was highly unrelated to anyone playing the game. If anything, these incidents would have been highly isolated incidents in response to the far far far more people playing a game with any adverse responses.

Question. Why do we listen to very rare isolated incidents ignoring the numerous people who don’t have this happen and make a national panic out of it?

And now, let’s prepare ourselves for a shock. One of the co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, was a Christian. What about the Pulling Report? Nonsense. So why did it get so popular? Because fear sells and sensationalism sells. Look at what happened in our recent history with Covid. So many people went into a panic and now we look back in retrospect and say “Yeah. It shouldn’t have happened.” Similar happened with Y2K and back then, I was even scared about things, not being well-equipped yet. The same happened before 2012. There were Christians who were making a major deal about a Rosh Hoshanah eclipse.

D&D is just a game like any other game and it is what you make of it. I happen to play with some others around here. We get together and it’s one of my favorite times of the month because we all come together and laugh and form friendships and it is about the relationships. I also recommend you see this video on the topic.

So what about Pokemon?

Okay. One criticism I remember seeing is about having creatures fight one another. Is this not promoting violence? People. If you have boys, you know they way they are. I remember going to the house of some friends of mine who played army on their birthdays. Kids will happily bring out toy guns and shoot at one another.

Yet they all know it’s fantasy. It’s not real. Right after playing army where they were trying to “destroy” one another, they were the best of friends. If anything, in Pokemon, the characters never die really.

In looking at the article, I find it amazing that the author wants to avoid pagan influences, but her kids play with Star Wars sabers, They just don’t use the force.

Okay. I don’t know Star Wars well. I went and looked this up and I’m sure some Star Wars fans can verify. This is from ScreenRant:

The most crucial part of a lightsaber (as well as the rarest and most expensive) is the kyber crystal. Kyber crystals are naturally attuned and imbued with the Force itself, making them immensely powerful objects. In other words, each kyber crystal is a small, physical manifestation of the Force. Jedi younglings didn’t simply choose any crystal they found in the Ilum caves. Instead, they often searched or endured a small trial before feeling a specific kyber crystal calling to them. The crystal would then bond with the user for life through the Force.

In other words, someone playing with a lightsaber is automatically using the Force.

Do I have a problem with that?

No, because if someone says “This is fantasy” and they know it, then this is not a problem. Was Star Wars made to share Eastern thought like Buddhism? Yes. Is Star Trek based on humanism and an atheistic worldview? Yes. Does that mean they’re all wicked and evil? No.

Christians need to engage with the imagination. If Christianity is true, even in non-Christian works, we will see shades of the gospel. We will see stories of redemption. We will see good vs evil. It is unavoidable. If Christianity is true, the gospel is unavoidable in great stories, even non-Christian stories.

For me personally, as a person on the spectrum, these games have been extremely helpful to me. I have got to have a community with people and laugh and share with them. I have gone to the community park around here with people and been accepted immediately because we all have that common bond.

The opposite, the satanic panic, leads to the opposite effect. If anything, this drives people away and makes them want nothing to do with Christianity and usually is based on highly false premises. Now by all means parents, you are the authority. You determine what is and isn’t allowed in your household, but you cannot shelter them forever. They will be on their own some time and if they think they were misled by you, they will likely blame that on Christianity also.

Instead, really discuss issues together and really let your child come to their decisions based on informed research. Talk to people of opposite perspectives on this. Do you find a Christian who enjoys something you think is evil and you don’t understand why? Ask them.

As a gamer, for instance, there are some games I wouldn’t play as a Christian. Suppose I met someone who did. Suppose I met someone I knew to be a devout Christian who played the Grand Theft Auto games for example. I would be intrigued and ask “Okay. I have some concerns with them. What do you think about XYZ?” Maybe I agree. Maybe I don’t Maybe I just need more time. The point is, at least I better understand my neighbor and if they are convinced they are fine in their own mind, then it’s a Romans 14 matter.

Also along the lines of the issue of concern about Pokemon and other games, I found this blog quite helpful. I recommend looking through and following the links.

If you disagree, let’s chat.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Does Exodus 31:16 and the Sabbath

Does this verse teach the Sabbath is a neverending covenant? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Exodus 31:16, we read this:

The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.

The ESV seems stronger:

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.

Same with the NASB:

So the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a permanent covenant.’

And one final example is the NAB:

So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.

By all means, this is not exhaustive. There are some translations that say this is a perpetual covenant.  I have chosen the strongest ones that give an idea of permanence. Is this the case then? Is someone like myself violating the text?

Good question.

Also, does it even apply to us? That’s another question. Are we Israelites? If so, what does that mean?

The word used to describe the covenant is Olam. There are some cases where it obviously doesn’t mean something that lasts eternally. Exodus 21:6 refers to making someone a servant for life of another. This hardly means that when the two meet in the afterdeath, assuming they do, that the one will still be a servant of the other.

Some cannot be forever. Exodus 27:21 gives such an example. That tent of meeting and the temple are no longer there so the lighting cannot be done. If you take it that this was simply a way of saying that this would go on for an indefinite amount of time, which is a proper interpretation of the word, you have no problem.

In the Levitical offerings in 6:22, one share is to be the Lord’s olam share. This does not mean that the share will last forever. It means that as long as the sacrifices are going on, the Lord will get this. In Scripture, we know God never intended animal sacrifices to go on forever, so this is surely something with an end date.

Leviticus 16:34 uses the word to describe the Day of Atonement. Again, this is no longer the way we as Christians pay for our sins. We do not sacrifice one goat and release another in the wild. Are we denying Scripture then?

In Deuteronomy 23, the word is used to describe the descendants of the Moabites and Ammonites who may not enter the kingdom of the Lord and this is said to be up to the tenth generation, thus even a time limit is put on this. Despite this, Ruth is a great hero in Scripture. Not only that, even more so is her descendant, a guy of some importance in the Bible named King David.

In 1 Samuel 2:30, God says He promised Eli members of his family would serve before Him forever. No more after what they have done! Now you could go the route of Open Theism and say God didn’t know. However, you could more plausibly go this is an anthropomorphism and that the covenant is not forever.

The same applies to 1 Sam. 13:13. God had said earlier in Genesis that the scepter would come from Judah. Did He not know?

In 2 Sam. 12:10, in light of the affair with Bathsheba, David is told the sword will never depart from His house. Despite this, Solomon still had a peaceful realm. It was notable for being peaceful even.

In 2 Chron. 7:16, the temple is where God will be forever. This same temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. Did God not know this was coming, or does Olam mean something besides forever?

It is used to describe Judah and the surrounding nations as an everlasting ruin in Jeremiah 25:9 at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Are we to think Jersualem was never to be rebuilt? It was rebuilt in the Old Testament itself and if you go to Israel today, I’m pretty sure Jerusalem is there.

Now does this mean that the Sabbath covenant is not an everlasting covenant?

No.

It does mean that this verse alone is sufficient to establish that. It could be that, or it could be simply a long and indefinite time. We don’t know on the basis of this verse alone. That requires looking elsewhere.

We’ll do that another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Obsessed With Blood Part 6

What about the church and money? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s time to wrap this book up. In this chapter, we’re going to talk about the church and money especially. At the start, Baker talks about how the ministry can be a money-making machine. I do want to highlight something he says:

Fortunately, as soon as I began to struggle with my faith, I stepped down from the ministry.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 117). Kindle Edition.

I have said a lot critical of Baker, but I do want to commend this part. I can understand if you are wrestling with something, but if you are having serious doubts and about to pack it all in, do step down. I do think Baker should be commended for this. Contrast this to Dan Barker who went on speaking anyway.

I remember being in Singapore, preaching for the well known, Pastor Joseph Prince, when I experienced a major spiritual crisis regarding the money I was earning from Preaching. You can read about this experience in more detail on my blog, www.ex-preacher.blogspot.com – it is worth reading.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 117). Kindle Edition.

Baker was associated with Word of Faith teachers so this is part of the problem here. I too have a problem with the amount of money that many “ministers” make. I am a capitalist through and through, but I also realize that greed is a problem in the church.

Finally, Baker says this:

Even though there are many preachers and pastors who do take advantage of their positions for financial and emotional gain, most do not. The vast majority of Christian leaders are sincere people who are simply sincerely wrong.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 119-120). Kindle Edition.

Again, this is something to be commended. Baker is right in that the majority of us who are in this field are not in it for the money. I do have a Patreon and I do get donors and I do need them, but I can assure anyone that I do not get rich from this. I highly encourage you to be a donor, but I have a high hope that if I had more income coming in, I would actually be instead of hoarding it, which is not my tendency, I would be giving it away. I do love giving to people.

I have been told for a long time that I could have done something else like being an engineer. I had no desire to do that. My heart thrives for doing ministry and now for doing apologetics.

So in the end, Baker’s book is not really damaging to anyone’s faith and it looks like he fell into a lot of the same tendencies that so many of these people tend to think exactly alike. It looks like Baker has gone from blindly believing Christianity to blindly believing atheism. I do appreciate that he does show some kindness to Christians in the end. I hope he eventually sees the real Christ in real Christians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Obsessed With Blood Part 5

Does Baker have a case with the New Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is easily the worst chapter of the book. There’s really not much about blood in here. It reads more as a compendium of bad arguments against the New Testament. What am I talking about? Well….

Josephus never mentions anything about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul or the Acts of the Apostles in any of his historical records. In reading the gospels and the book of Acts, the events that occurred would surely have been known by everyone, including the historian Josephus. The known world was still a very small place and events of this magnitude would have definitely been noticed. Christians and non-Christians alike, would have recorded them. Yet not surprisingly these things are only recorded in Christian writings.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 87). Kindle Edition.

The first part is just wrong. Most scholars agree that while the Testimonium has some interpolations in it, there is a part of it there that is accurate and part of what Josephus wrote. The second reference is not nearly as debated at all. Both of these refer to the historical Jesus.

For the second one, he gives us no reason why anyone would write about these events. He just assumes it. I often present skeptics today with many claims of miracles taking place all over the world today. How many are investigated? None. The ancient Roman world was also not interested in claims they would deem bizarre coming from communities that were full of the ignorant. Some things never change.

Not only that, very few people could write in the ancient world and if they could, there were many other things they were interested in. What about Josephus? Josephus was interested in things relevant to Jerusalem and Judaism. Why would he care about saying anything about miracles going on in a sect that was deemed heretical by Jews at the time? As I have said before, in the ancient world, Jesus was not worth talking about.

It is very important to understand that not one of the New Testament writers actually witnessed the events they wrote about. In other words, they were writing hearsay. Secondhand accounts as told by supposed witnesses of the events recorded in the Gospels and Acts. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any leader, religious or otherwise, most definitely exaggerate the character of the people they follow.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 87-88). Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, not a single citation about this is given and if this was even true and Baker went with this consistently, he would have to throw out the majority of ancient history. However, there is no interaction with works like Redating the New Testament. There is no interaction with conservative arguments for early dates or even people like James Crossley, an agnostic who argues Mark was even written in the 40’s.

Fortunately for the writers of the New Testament, several of the Old Testament prophets spoke of a messiah, a savior who would put to death the enemies of God. So all the followers of Jesus had to do was start spreading the word that He was the prophesied messiah, the Son of God! Even though this was a slap in the face to many Jews, those desperate for change and freedom after years of oppression from the Roman Republic would easily follow such a belief. The early Christian church was still predominantly a Jewish sect that had simply added the belief Jesus was the prophesied messiah. Followers of this teaching were called “Jewish Christians.”

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 89-90). Kindle Edition.

Again, no citation is given for any of this. Why would they believe they could get freedom and oppression from Jesus? He was crucified by Rome. That was a dealbreaker. The only reason they would is they believed Jesus had already conquered by rising from the dead. Baker does not understand the social culture of the ancient world at all.

In the book of Acts we see Saul, a Roman and supposed persecutor of Christians, have an encounter with the long dead Jesus while travelling to his home in Damascus. Saul was convinced by a blinding apparition of light and a heavenly voice to take the message of Christ to the Gentiles. After a rather dubious miracle that restored his eyesight, he changed his name and became the Apostle Paul, writer of more than half the New Testament.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 90). Kindle Edition.

I am curious what he means by a supposed persecutor. I don’t know any scholar in the field really who doubts this. It is also unclear what is meant by a dubious miracle. I can understand saying “I don’t think the account is historical”, but I think if someone loses their eyesight and suddenly upon prayer has it back, it’s not dubious to think a miracle has taken place.

Although places like Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth and Athens looked magnificent, they were also home to tens of thousands of poor, desperate people who were the perfect audience for the Christian message of eternal life by faith, and not by works.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 91). Kindle Edition.

Look. I am fully Protestant apologist and I do believe in justification by faith definitely, but that was not the main message that would be preached, but rather the Kingdom of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Also, Jews at the time would actually think that they were not saved by works either. They were saved by being part of the covenant people. They would have to ask if they would truly be part of the covenant people if they became Christians. I actually recommend Baker read Paul Was Not A Christian, which I have reviewed here. It is written by a non-Christian Jewish New Testament scholar and clarifies a number of points, even though I have a number of criticisms per my blog.

In much the same way, we have seen the prolific increase in the past century of religions such as the Latter Day Saints and Christian scientists. They have a basis in Christianity, yet their teachings differ, sometimes greatly, from the original. But still having recognizable themes interwoven throughout their theology makes them more readily acceptable. The one true God, that both Jews and gentiles alike were familiar with, began to evolve into something totally different.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 94). Kindle Edition.

Both of these groups also arose in America which has very different ways of handling movements like these than the Roman Empire did. In the Roman Empire, not embracing the Roman gods in any way was treason. Jews being an ancient sect were granted leniency so long as they at least sacrificed for and prayed for the emperor. This has not been the case in America.

It is also true the Mormons had some persecution, but they also had soldiers known as Danites who were willing to fight for them. Not only that, they could easily pick up and move somewhere else. Eventually, they moved all the way out west to Utah. As for Christian Science, it was never really a movement that presented the problems that Mormons did so it was live and let live.

The ancient world was not like this.

Now, let’s talk about the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

I recently read a popular Christian rebuttal for this fact, and in the interest of fairness; I thought I would share it with you:

“This sort of objection [Paul not mentioning the virgin birth] demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time they were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.”

This would be a good defense except the Bible is supposed to be inspired for instruction and teaching – Surely God would want believers who were not around at the time of Paul’s writing, to also learn about this important point concerning His Son! If these believers already knew all the basic teachings, why did Paul say he could not write to them as spiritually mature but as mere infants in Christ?

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 97-98). Kindle Edition.

Baker might not realize it, but he isn’t even touching the argument. It is as if the audience of Paul can only believe what they read in a letter from him, which is Scripture, and get absolutely nothing from oral tradition. So, if the virgin birth is part of background knowledge, Paul would not have needed to mention it. Baker is assuming though that it wasn’t and then saying “Paul didn’t mention it so it couldn’t have been part of their knowledge.” He is essentially using circular reasoning.

Finally, why could Paul say they were not being spiritually mature? Simple. Maturity is not about having a lot of knowledge. Fans of a show like The Big Bang Theory can easily say Sheldon Cooper has a lot of knowledge. Does he have a lot of maturity? Not at first definitely. Fans of the series like myself see him growing throughout the series. Knowledge does not equal maturity.

During this translation from Hebrew to Greek it appears the translator made a mistake. Erroneously translating the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word parthenos which means virgin. Almah actually means, a young women or maid. There is even one case where the word almah is used to refer to an adulteress.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 99). Kindle Edition.

There is no citation here from Baker and I cannot find where the word Almah is used to refer to an adulteress. The only possible reference could be the way of a man with a maid in Proverbs 30 not being understood, but that does not mean an adulteress. Men do crazy things around women they’re just attracted to.

So we have no reason for thinking this is a mistranslation then.

The writer of Matthew, familiar only with the erroneous Greek translation jumped to the crazy conclusion that Jesus, being the prophesied messiah, had to be born of a virgin. His understanding of Greek Mythology, which had several gods born of virgins, may have added to this delusion.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 99). Kindle Edition.

Baker then assumes that Matthew made this up since this had to be the case for the Messiah, but no reason is given why he would do this. This would automatically be admitting Jesus was born out of wedlock. It would be a mark of shame to skeptics and would only be accepted by people who were believers, that is, those who already believed in the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

Finally, we have this:

If Jesus really was the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, don’t you think that the Jewish people would have accepted him as such? The Jews had been living and studying the prophecies regarding their messiah for the previous 700 years or so – surely they would have been in the best position to verify this claim. They didn’t. They never have.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 103-104). Kindle Edition.

Well, no. I don’t. Jews sadly have a history of rejecting YHWH and His prophets. Why think when the greatest one of all who was YHWH Himself that things would be any different? Baker gives us no reason. He just assumes that they would be right about who the Messiah was.

By the way, this is also someone who claims to be a freethinker but apparently wants those people who had “bronze age beliefs” to determine what he should think.

Amusing in a sense.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)